Lyons: Did the shark attack, or was he merely curious?

Published: Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 8:51 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 8:51 p.m.

Shark researchers are the salty adventurers of the scientific world, but new data suggests some are more sensitive than I realized.

Sarasota's Mote Marine Laboratory sent out a press release this past week in which two shark scientists urged news media and fellow scientists alike to stop using the term "shark attack."

Robert Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote, joined with a colleague based in Australia to say this accusatory phrase is almost always unfair to the shark involved.

No, really.

Calling a shark bite an attack, the authors say, "can create a perception of a premeditated crime, lowering the public's threshold for accepting shark bite incidents as random acts of nature. The narrative establishes villains and victims," and seems to "criminalize natural behavior" and also often inaccurately describes what really happened, they insist.

Many so-called attacks on humans are unintentional encounters in which loss of blood, limb or life was purely unintentional, the argument goes.

"We recognize that there are very rare cases where 'shark attack' would be the appropriate descriptor," Hueter wrote. But he asks scientists and reporters to use it only in rare cases "where bites are very serious and the intent of the shark can be established," though, he conceded, "for us to know exactly what the shark was intending to do is even rarer."

Yeah. As I told Hueter, the problem is that sharks rarely admit anything, and many just scram after an atta....I mean, after one of their controversial incidents. Without a confession, who knows if the shark had criminal intent?

But, I told Hueter, if you're going to act like a defense lawyer, be aware that some people are tired of the old "the shark thought that surfer was a seal" defense. And "the water was stirred up and he thought that foot was a fish" could sometimes just be an excuse to help sharks dodge personal responsibility.

Hueter, I'm glad to say, has a sense of humor.

"We knew this could make us the punch line for jokes," he said. He and Christopher Neff of the University of Sydney figured their pitch might get attention on late-night talk shows as much as from people who study or write about sharks.

They decided that is OK, if they help make the point that shark bites are not all the same.

"The term 'shark attack' is typically used by the media, government officials, researchers and the public to describe almost any kind of human-shark interaction — even those where no contact or injury occurs between humans and sharks," the scientists wrote.

I hadn't noticed. But I guess aggressive slamming into a boat hull by a shark big enough to have its own movie is usually taken as an attack, though — who knows? — maybe it was just curious.

Does intent matter to those bitten or scared out of their wits when their kayak is chomped?

Hueter told me what matters is that people get the wrong idea that there is an aggressive animal problem that must be dealt with, rather than natural animal behavior that calls for caution and study, but probably maybe nothing more.

No matter what we saw in "Jaws," he said, there are no rogue man-eater sharks with an acquired obsessive taste for human flesh. As far as scientists know.

It is true that every newspaper in Florida seems to run even the tiniest shark bite story. When a wader 150 miles away gets a gash from a sand shark smaller than a trophy bass, you'll hear about the ten stitches the "victim" got at the ER.

Calling that an attack — or news — is hyping things a bit, I agree.

"The current study reviewed Associated Press articles in Florida during 2001 — known as the 'Summer of the Shark' because of shark incidents ranging from minor to severe — and found that 79 percent of these stories used 'attack' in the headline, even in the case of non-serious injuries," the scientists wrote.

"There simply is no value in using 'attack' language," Neff concluded.

I wouldn't go quite that far, guys. Sometimes an attack is an attack is an attack is an attack, whether by dog, grizzly bear or shark, and no matter why the attacker was biting.

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.

<p>Shark researchers are the salty adventurers of the scientific world, but new data suggests some are more sensitive than I realized.</p><p>Sarasota's Mote Marine Laboratory sent out a press release this past week in which two shark scientists urged news media and fellow scientists alike to stop using the term "shark attack."</p><p>Robert Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote, joined with a colleague based in Australia to say this accusatory phrase is almost always unfair to the shark involved.</p><p>No, really.</p><p>Calling a shark bite an attack, the authors say, "can create a perception of a premeditated crime, lowering the public's threshold for accepting shark bite incidents as random acts of nature. The narrative establishes villains and victims," and seems to "criminalize natural behavior" and also often inaccurately describes what really happened, they insist. </p><p>Many so-called attacks on humans are unintentional encounters in which loss of blood, limb or life was purely unintentional, the argument goes.</p><p>"We recognize that there are very rare cases where 'shark attack' would be the appropriate descriptor," Hueter wrote. But he asks scientists and reporters to use it only in rare cases "where bites are very serious and the intent of the shark can be established," though, he conceded, "for us to know exactly what the shark was intending to do is even rarer."</p><p>Yeah. As I told Hueter, the problem is that sharks rarely admit anything, and many just scram after an atta....I mean, after one of their controversial incidents. Without a confession, who knows if the shark had criminal intent?</p><p>But, I told Hueter, if you're going to act like a defense lawyer, be aware that some people are tired of the old "the shark thought that surfer was a seal" defense. And "the water was stirred up and he thought that foot was a fish" could sometimes just be an excuse to help sharks dodge personal responsibility.</p><p>Hueter, I'm glad to say, has a sense of humor.</p><p>"We knew this could make us the punch line for jokes," he said. He and Christopher Neff of the University of Sydney figured their pitch might get attention on late-night talk shows as much as from people who study or write about sharks.</p><p>They decided that is OK, if they help make the point that shark bites are not all the same.</p><p>"The term 'shark attack' is typically used by the media, government officials, researchers and the public to describe almost any kind of human-shark interaction — even those where no contact or injury occurs between humans and sharks," the scientists wrote.</p><p>I hadn't noticed. But I guess aggressive slamming into a boat hull by a shark big enough to have its own movie is usually taken as an attack, though — who knows? — maybe it was just curious.</p><p>Does intent matter to those bitten or scared out of their wits when their kayak is chomped?</p><p>Hueter told me what matters is that people get the wrong idea that there is an aggressive animal problem that must be dealt with, rather than natural animal behavior that calls for caution and study, but probably maybe nothing more.</p><p>No matter what we saw in "Jaws," he said, there are no rogue man-eater sharks with an acquired obsessive taste for human flesh. As far as scientists know.</p><p>It is true that every newspaper in Florida seems to run even the tiniest shark bite story. When a wader 150 miles away gets a gash from a sand shark smaller than a trophy bass, you'll hear about the ten stitches the "victim" got at the ER.</p><p>Calling that an attack — or news — is hyping things a bit, I agree.</p><p>"The current study reviewed Associated Press articles in Florida during 2001 — known as the 'Summer of the Shark' because of shark incidents ranging from minor to severe — and found that 79 percent of these stories used 'attack' in the headline, even in the case of non-serious injuries," the scientists wrote. </p><p>"There simply is no value in using 'attack' language," Neff concluded.</p><p>I wouldn't go quite that far, guys. Sometimes an attack is an attack is an attack is an attack, whether by dog, grizzly bear or shark, and no matter why the attacker was biting.</p><p><i></p><p>Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.</i></p>